13200

From: onco111 <dalthorp@o...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 11:20am
Subject: Re: "ritual" [Victor]

 	
Dear Victor,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

Spiritually speaking, what is the difference between swimming and 
satipatthana? Between satipatthana and yoga?

Dan

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Regarding your first question on what are the characteristics of 
> right practice, I would like to ask it as: what is the path* 
leading 
> to the cessation of dukkha?
> 
> Regarding your second question "Is satipatthana a skill?"
> 
> As one of its definitions, the word "skill" means "a learned power 
of 
> doing something competently: a developed aptitude or ability"** 
The 
> word "satipatthana" is defined as "intent contemplation and 
> mindfulness, earnest thought, application of mindfulness"***
> 
> My answer is:
> Satipatthana is not a skill, but the skill in satipatthana is.
> 
> Likewise,
> Swimming itself is not a skill, but the skill of how to swim is.
> 
> Regards,
> Victor
> 
> *See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html
> **See http://www.webster.com/
> ***See http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/
> 
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" <dalthorp@o...> wrote:
> > Victor:
> > > To add on what you have said, I would like to say that one can 
> read 
> > > all about swimming without knowing how to swim. Reading and 
> > studying 
> > > may help, but it really takes practice to learn the skill. 
> > 
> > You raise two important issues here. Certainly, the importance of 
> > practice is agreed on by all, and that there is a big distinction 
> > between swimming and reading about swimming (as there is between 
> > Dhamma and reading about Dhamma). The question is what are the 
> > characteristics of right practice. 
> > 
> > Is satipatthana a skill? 
> > 
> > Dan
	
13201

From: yuzhonghao <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 2:05pm
Subject: Re: "ritual" [Victor]

 	
Hi Dan,

Let's go back to your original question:
"Is satipatthana a skill?" 

My answer to you is:
No, Satipatthana is not a skill. However, the skill in satipatthana 
is.

If you are not sure what my answer means, let me know.

Regards,
Victor


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" <dalthorp@o...> wrote:
> Dear Victor,
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean...
> 
> Spiritually speaking, what is the difference between swimming and 
> satipatthana? Between satipatthana and yoga?
> 
> Dan
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "yuzhonghao" <victoryu@s...> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> > 
> > Regarding your first question on what are the characteristics of 
> > right practice, I would like to ask it as: what is the path* 
> leading 
> > to the cessation of dukkha?
> > 
> > Regarding your second question "Is satipatthana a skill?"
> > 
> > As one of its definitions, the word "skill" means "a learned 
power 
> of 
> > doing something competently: a developed aptitude or ability"** 
> The 
> > word "satipatthana" is defined as "intent contemplation and 
> > mindfulness, earnest thought, application of mindfulness"***
> > 
> > My answer is:
> > Satipatthana is not a skill, but the skill in satipatthana is.
> > 
> > Likewise,
> > Swimming itself is not a skill, but the skill of how to swim is.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Victor
> > 
> > *See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn45-008.html
> > **See http://www.webster.com/
> > ***See http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/
> > 
> > 
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "onco111" <dalthorp@o...> wrote:
> > > Victor:
> > > > To add on what you have said, I would like to say that one 
can 
> > read 
> > > > all about swimming without knowing how to swim. Reading and 
> > > studying 
> > > > may help, but it really takes practice to learn the skill. 
> > > 
> > > You raise two important issues here. Certainly, the importance 
of 
> > > practice is agreed on by all, and that there is a big 
distinction 
> > > between swimming and reading about swimming (as there is 
between 
> > > Dhamma and reading about Dhamma). The question is what are the 
> > > characteristics of right practice. 
> > > 
> > > Is satipatthana a skill? 
> > > 
> > > Dan
	
13202

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 4:20pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi: To Wynn, Sarah, Kom

 	
Hi all, regarding magical feats, while trying to find the answer to
another question I came across this description of piti (happiness) in
Vism IV, 94. As you know piti is the proximate cause of ekaggata (one
pointedness) and in the jhanas is brought on by vitakka and vicara
(applied thought and sustained thought). There are five degrees of
intensity of piti: minor, momentary, showering, uplifting, and
pervading. This isn't really a skill, but it definitely sounds like fun.

Larry
-----------------
Herein, minor happiness is only able to raise the hairs on the body.
Momentary happiness is like flashes of lightening at different moments.
Showering happiness breaks over the body again and again like waves on
the sea shore.

Uplifting happiness can be powerful enough to levitate the body and make
it spring up into the air. For this was what happened to the Elder
Maha-Tissa, resident at Punnavallika. He went to the shrine terrace on
the evening of the full moon day. Seeing the moonlight, he faced in the
direction of the Great Shrine [at Anuradhapura], thinking 'At this very
hour the four assemblies are worshipping at the Great Shrine!'. By means
of objects formerly seen [there] he aroused uplifting happiness with the
Enlightened One as object, and he rose into the air like a painted ball
bounced off a plastered floor and alighted on the terrace of the Great
Shrine....

So uplifting happiness can be powerful enough to levitate the body and
make it spring up into the air.

But when pervading (rapturous) happiness arises, the whole body is
completely pervaded, like a filled bladder, like a rock cavern invaded
by a huge inundation.

Now this fivefold happiness, when conceived and matured, perfects the
twofold tranquility, that is, bodily and mental tranquility. When
tranquility is conceived and matured, it perfects the twofold bliss,
that is, bodily and mental bliss. When bliss is conceived and matured,
it perfects the threefold concentration, that is, momentary
concentration, access concentration, and absorption concentration. <END
QUOTE>
	
13203

From: tikmok <kom@a...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 5:09pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Dear Howard,

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> 
> I think you make very important points here. We need be clearly 
aware 
> of the conceptual distinctions between the Brahma viharas and their 
near 
> enemies. Then, the other side of the coin is to have direct, clear 
> comprehension of exactly what is experienced at the time that one of 
the 
> Brahma viharas seems to be in force. I think it is very useful to be 
> particularly mindful on those occasions at which one of them seems to 
be in 
> effect with regard to a stranger, for that is a likely circumstance for us 
> not to be mistaken.

Thank you for reminding me that knowing the conceptual differences 
without knowing the actual differences ultimately doesn't improve my 
situation. I totally agree with you on this, with an addition. I see the 
direct comprehension as being on the same side of the coin of the 
conceptual study, being mutually supportive of one another. 

The direct, clear, and hopefully correct comprehension (by panna) 
cannot come about without hearing the teachings, and without 
understanding conceptually what the teachings are all about. There 
cannot be deepening appreciation of the teachings, without directly 
comprehending the realities that are arising now. The detailed 
teachings allow us to directly see how subtle kilesas are, and the more 
we directly see how subtle kilesas are, the more confidence we have in 
the teachings as well as the more conceptual understandings of the 
teachings. 

I think hearing about the dhammas (or thinking about them), and 
directly seeing the dhammas in daily life, go hand-in-hand. I think the 
mutual support of these 2 goes much deeper than some people 
recognize.

This, of course, doesn't mean that we should neglect developing kusala 
at all other levels!

kom
	
13204

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 5:30pm
Subject: kilesa

 	
Dear group, can someone enlighten me as to what are 'defilements
associated with agitation' and 'defilements associated with ignorance'
in the quote from Vism XXII 46 below? The defilements are greed, hate,
delusion, conceit, false view, uncertainty, torpor, agitation,
consciencelessness, and shamelessness.

thanks, Larry
--------------
At the time of developing the eight mundane attainments the serenity
power is in excess, while at the time of developing the contemplations
of impermanence, etc., the insight power is in excess. But at the noble
path moment they occur coupled together in the sense that neither one
exceeds the other. So there is coupling of the powers in the case of
each one of these four kinds of knowledge, according as it is said 'When
he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the
aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has
cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated
with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of
contemplation has cessation as its domain. So serenity and insight have
a single nature in the sense of emergence, they are coupled together,
and neither exceeds the other. Hence it was said: He develops serenity
and insight coupled together in the sense of emergence'
	
13205

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 1:42pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa

 	
In a message dated 5/11/2002 5:33:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
LBIDD@w... writes:


> 'When
> he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the
> aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has
> cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated
> with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of
> 

Hi Larry

Someone can probably give you a better answer, but in short...the defilements 
associated with agitation are any states that keep the mind from being 
concentrated. The defilements associated with ignorance are any states that 
keep the mind from attaining insight.

The answer is contained within the paragraph you cite but it is hard to 
decifer sometimes. That passage, from the Visuddhimagga, is a quote from the 
Patisambhidamagga. (I'm pretty sure.)

TG


	
13206

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 2:07pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Hi, Kom -

In a message dated 5/11/02 8:10:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kom@a... 
writes:


> Thank you for reminding me that knowing the conceptual differences 
> without knowing the actual differences ultimately doesn't improve my 
> situation. I totally agree with you on this, with an addition. I see the 
> direct comprehension as being on the same side of the coin of the 
> conceptual study, being mutually supportive of one another. 
> 
==============================
Actually, it is the two sides of the coin that support each other! 
I've never seen a one-sided coin!! ;-))

With two-sided (but not two-faced ;-) metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13207

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 7:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa

 	
Hi TG, 
you are correct. The quote in Visuddhimagga is from Patisambhidamagga
ii,98. I don't have this or even know what it is. What I was trying to
sort out is which defilements, of the 10, are associated with agitation
and which with ignorance. Also I was wondering if 'agitation' is
'uddhacca' (restlessness). I couldn't find the answer in Visuddhimagga.
Is there any indication in Patisambhidamagga?

Larry
--------------
'When he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and
from the aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction,
concentration, has cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the
defilements associated with ignorance and from the aggregates, his
insight in the sense of contemplation has cessation as its domain. So
serenity and insight have a single nature in the sense of emergence,
they are coupled together, and neither exceeds the other. Hence it was
said: He develops serenity and insight coupled together in the sense of
emergence'
	
13208

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 9:41pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Silabbataparamasa -- inner vs. outer?

 	
--- onco111 <dalthorp@o...> wrote:
> 
> It is also a mistake to think that practicing and
> perfecting 
> meditation techniques will result in wisdom -- the
> fetter of [inner] 
> silabbataparamasa.
> 

No disagreement here, but ... :-)
Developing the tools that enable penetrating
insight does not guarantee wisdom, but a far greater
mistake is to dismiss these meditation practices as
too difficult for us to develop. The greatest mistake
is to believe that undeveloped wisdom could arise
without the assistance of developing these meditation
practices to a sufficient degree. 

-fk


	
13209

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 9:57pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] "ritual" [reply to Erik]

 	
--- onco111 <dalthorp@o...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say
> "breakthrough." [in my ashtanga yoga practice] Could
you 
> elaborate?
> 

Hi Dan, 
What I mean is that progress in yoga and spiritual
practice does not always show tangible incremental
signs of improvement on a daily basis. Months can pass
before progress is seen, but the crucial point is that
those months of seeming non-progress laid the
foundation for the "breakthrough". We must not cease
persistent practice if we do not get instant results.
There is no other way to create fertile conditions for
genuine insight to arise.

-fk



	
13210

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 10:05pm
Subject: 4 brahmavihara, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Hi Kom,
Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near
enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack
Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of
unverifiedness) :

near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy,
near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is
indifference/apathy

-fk

--- Kom Tukovinit <kom@a...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to
> know
> their characteristics, and know how they are
> different from
> lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when
> we think
> we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it
> may
> just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to
> those
> qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4
> qualities,
> from memory (so please check, if you have the
> opportunities!)
> 
> Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to
> mistake
> lobha for metta. For example, when we treat
> somebody kindly
> who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very
> difficult
> to tell.
> 
> Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing
> the
> Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa
> (unhappiness
> for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a
> thin,
> malnourished child, is the wish to do something for
> the
> child really driven by our need to drive away the
> unpleasant
> feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna?
> 
> Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see
> happiness
> of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by
> mudita?
> 
> Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some
> people
> mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent
> feeling as
> equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is
> the
> quality of not falling into unwholesome states. 
> When we
> feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that
> lack of
> metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a
> knowledge that
> we cannot do anything for the person and that each
> person
> has kamma as their own?
> 
> We normally like to think good thing about ourselves
> (like
> we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity,
> especially
> comparing to other people!), but without knowing
> these
> different qualities, then developing them to a high
> degree
> is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we
> actually
> have these qualities are just wishful thinking.
> 
> The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard
> akusala.
> What if we are in a situation that requires us to
> rebuke
> somebody to help others? My question would then be,
> is that
> rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking
> somebody out
> of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and
> one
> will certainly suffer the result of that akusala
> kamma, and
> enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for
> another. We
> need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is
> kusala,
> then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. 
> Wishing
> it some way or another doesn't change the realities.
> 
> I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. 
> The
> Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick)
> 3
> different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the
> Buddha that
> the water was unsuitable for drinking because of
> recent herd
> crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda
> eventually
> found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha
> couldn't get
> suitable water was said to be his chasing away his
> herd from
> unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he
> did this
> out of good intention, but akusala alternated with
> kusala,
> and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma.
> 
> I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all
> levels of
> kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an
> opportunity
> presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala
> or
> indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also
> have to
> remember, all these qualities rise because of
> conditions.
> Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably
> are
> conditioned by our own accumulations and the people
> with are
> associated with. However, with the Buddha's
> teachings, we
> can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing
> detailed
> teachings about these qualities and their enemies,
> by
> considering them in our daily lives, by knowing
> their
> benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by
> knowing
> them as they truly are: conditioned realities that
> fall away
> immediately that is neither self or ours.
> 
> kom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: christine_forsyth
> [mailto:cforsyth@v...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM
> > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6)
> >
> >
> > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All,
> >
> > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for
> > me, accepting
> > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause
> > that aversion arises
> > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the
> > finger at a particular
> > individual. In actual everday hands-on living
> > of our lives, and
> > while understanding that complex conditions
> > bring about suffering -
> > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether
> > it is ourselves, dear
> > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to
> > attempt to assist or
> > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are
> > being treated
> > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral
> > neutrality? Should we
> > speak out about perceived injustices, or should
> > we just say 'It's
> > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings..
> > shows lack of
> > advancement in the practice yet, too much
> > dosa,mana, clinging, or not
> > enough <choose label>' ? Often, it is easier to
> > preserve silence,
> > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk
> > losing valued
> > friendships....
> > Non-action, like action, is an intentional
> > choice. And if I don't
> > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one
> > action instead of
> > another, the results of that action or non-action
> > are my kama-vipaka
> > eventually?
> > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in
> > need of protection,
> > speaking out about injustices, social action?
> > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend
> Marin
> > Niemoellers "First They Came For"....
> > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the
> > communists, and I didn't
> > speak up because I wasn't a communist.
> > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak
> > up because I wasn't a
> > Jew.
> > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I
> > didn't speak up because
> 
=== message truncated ===

13211

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 10:05pm
Subject: 4 brahmavihara, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Hi Kom,
Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near
enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack
Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of
unverifiedness) :

near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy,
near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is
indifference/apathy

-fk

--- Kom Tukovinit <kom@a...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to
> know
> their characteristics, and know how they are
> different from
> lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when
> we think
> we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it
> may
> just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to
> those
> qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4
> qualities,
> from memory (so please check, if you have the
> opportunities!)
> 
> Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to
> mistake
> lobha for metta. For example, when we treat
> somebody kindly
> who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very
> difficult
> to tell.
> 
> Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing
> the
> Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa
> (unhappiness
> for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a
> thin,
> malnourished child, is the wish to do something for
> the
> child really driven by our need to drive away the
> unpleasant
> feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna?
> 
> Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see
> happiness
> of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by
> mudita?
> 
> Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some
> people
> mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent
> feeling as
> equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is
> the
> quality of not falling into unwholesome states. 
> When we
> feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that
> lack of
> metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a
> knowledge that
> we cannot do anything for the person and that each
> person
> has kamma as their own?
> 
> We normally like to think good thing about ourselves
> (like
> we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity,
> especially
> comparing to other people!), but without knowing
> these
> different qualities, then developing them to a high
> degree
> is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we
> actually
> have these qualities are just wishful thinking.
> 
> The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard
> akusala.
> What if we are in a situation that requires us to
> rebuke
> somebody to help others? My question would then be,
> is that
> rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking
> somebody out
> of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and
> one
> will certainly suffer the result of that akusala
> kamma, and
> enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for
> another. We
> need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is
> kusala,
> then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. 
> Wishing
> it some way or another doesn't change the realities.
> 
> I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. 
> The
> Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick)
> 3
> different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the
> Buddha that
> the water was unsuitable for drinking because of
> recent herd
> crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda
> eventually
> found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha
> couldn't get
> suitable water was said to be his chasing away his
> herd from
> unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he
> did this
> out of good intention, but akusala alternated with
> kusala,
> and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma.
> 
> I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all
> levels of
> kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an
> opportunity
> presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala
> or
> indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also
> have to
> remember, all these qualities rise because of
> conditions.
> Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably
> are
> conditioned by our own accumulations and the people
> with are
> associated with. However, with the Buddha's
> teachings, we
> can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing
> detailed
> teachings about these qualities and their enemies,
> by
> considering them in our daily lives, by knowing
> their
> benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by
> knowing
> them as they truly are: conditioned realities that
> fall away
> immediately that is neither self or ours.
> 
> kom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: christine_forsyth
> [mailto:cforsyth@v...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM
> > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6)
> >
> >
> > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All,
> >
> > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for
> > me, accepting
> > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause
> > that aversion arises
> > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the
> > finger at a particular
> > individual. In actual everday hands-on living
> > of our lives, and
> > while understanding that complex conditions
> > bring about suffering -
> > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether
> > it is ourselves, dear
> > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to
> > attempt to assist or
> > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are
> > being treated
> > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral
> > neutrality? Should we
> > speak out about perceived injustices, or should
> > we just say 'It's
> > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings..
> > shows lack of
> > advancement in the practice yet, too much
> > dosa,mana, clinging, or not
> > enough <choose label>' ? Often, it is easier to
> > preserve silence,
> > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk
> > losing valued
> > friendships....
> > Non-action, like action, is an intentional
> > choice. And if I don't
> > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one
> > action instead of
> > another, the results of that action or non-action
> > are my kama-vipaka
> > eventually?
> > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in
> > need of protection,
> > speaking out about injustices, social action?
> > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend
> Marin
> > Niemoellers "First They Came For"....
> > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the
> > communists, and I didn't
> > speak up because I wasn't a communist.
> > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak
> > up because I wasn't a
> > Jew.
> > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I
> > didn't speak up because
> 
=== message truncated ===


	

 	 

	
13212

From: frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 10:06pm
Subject: 4 brahmaviharas, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Hi Kom,
Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near
enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack
Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of
unverifiedness) :

near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy,
near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is
indifference/apathy

-fk


--- Kom Tukovinit <kom@a...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to
> know
> their characteristics, and know how they are
> different from
> lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when
> we think
> we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it
> may
> just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to
> those
> qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4
> qualities,
> from memory (so please check, if you have the
> opportunities!)
> 
> Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to
> mistake
> lobha for metta. For example, when we treat
> somebody kindly
> who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very
> difficult
> to tell.
> 
> Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing
> the
> Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa
> (unhappiness
> for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a
> thin,
> malnourished child, is the wish to do something for
> the
> child really driven by our need to drive away the
> unpleasant
> feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna?
> 
> Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see
> happiness
> of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by
> mudita?
> 
> Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some
> people
> mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent
> feeling as
> equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is
> the
> quality of not falling into unwholesome states. 
> When we
> feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that
> lack of
> metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a
> knowledge that
> we cannot do anything for the person and that each
> person
> has kamma as their own?
> 
> We normally like to think good thing about ourselves
> (like
> we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity,
> especially
> comparing to other people!), but without knowing
> these
> different qualities, then developing them to a high
> degree
> is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we
> actually
> have these qualities are just wishful thinking.
> 
> The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard
> akusala.
> What if we are in a situation that requires us to
> rebuke
> somebody to help others? My question would then be,
> is that
> rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking
> somebody out
> of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and
> one
> will certainly suffer the result of that akusala
> kamma, and
> enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for
> another. We
> need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is
> kusala,
> then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. 
> Wishing
> it some way or another doesn't change the realities.
> 
> I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. 
> The
> Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick)
> 3
> different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the
> Buddha that
> the water was unsuitable for drinking because of
> recent herd
> crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda
> eventually
> found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha
> couldn't get
> suitable water was said to be his chasing away his
> herd from
> unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he
> did this
> out of good intention, but akusala alternated with
> kusala,
> and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma.
> 
> I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all
> levels of
> kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an
> opportunity
> presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala
> or
> indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also
> have to
> remember, all these qualities rise because of
> conditions.
> Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably
> are
> conditioned by our own accumulations and the people
> with are
> associated with. However, with the Buddha's
> teachings, we
> can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing
> detailed
> teachings about these qualities and their enemies,
> by
> considering them in our daily lives, by knowing
> their
> benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by
> knowing
> them as they truly are: conditioned realities that
> fall away
> immediately that is neither self or ours.
> 
> kom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: christine_forsyth
> [mailto:cforsyth@v...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM
> > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6)
> >
> >
> > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All,
> >
> > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for
> > me, accepting
> > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause
> > that aversion arises
> > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the
> > finger at a particular
> > individual. In actual everday hands-on living
> > of our lives, and
> > while understanding that complex conditions
> > bring about suffering -
> > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether
> > it is ourselves, dear
> > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to
> > attempt to assist or
> > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are
> > being treated
> > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral
> > neutrality? Should we
> > speak out about perceived injustices, or should
> > we just say 'It's
> > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings..
> > shows lack of
> > advancement in the practice yet, too much
> > dosa,mana, clinging, or not
> > enough <choose label>' ? Often, it is easier to
> > preserve silence,
> > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk
> > losing valued
> > friendships....
> > Non-action, like action, is an intentional
> > choice. And if I don't
> > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one
> > action instead of
> > another, the results of that action or non-action
> > are my kama-vipaka
> > eventually?
> > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in
> > need of protection,
> > speaking out about injustices, social action?
> > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend
> Marin
> > Niemoellers "First They Came For"....
> > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the
> > communists, and I didn't
> > speak up because I wasn't a communist.
> > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak
> > up because I wasn't a
> > Jew.
> > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I
> > didn't speak up because
> 
=== message truncated ===


	
13213

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 6:58pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa

 	
Hi Larry

In the Manual of Abhidhamma (Abhidhammattha Sangaha) ignorance (delusion) and 
agitation (restlessness) are listed as "unwholesome universals" meaning that 
they accompany all unwholesome states. This, of course, would also mean 
that they accompany all defilements.

The Patisambhidhamma (Path of Discrimination) is making the point that -- 
insight is key in overcoming ignorance and concentration (serenity) is key in 
overcoming agitation. Also that insight and concentration (serenity) must be 
combined in order to emerge (break free) from defilements.

The Path of Discrimination (Patisambhidamagga) is one of the 15 books from 
the 5th Nikaya. The Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification) relies on it a lot.

TG


	
13214

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sat May 11, 2002 11:10pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Dear Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote: 

> I think it is very useful to be 
> particularly mindful on those occasions at which one of them seems to be
> in 
> effect with regard to a stranger, for that is a likely circumstance for
> us 
> not to be mistaken.
.....
Speaking for myself, there is so much ignorance accumulated, that any
occasion or circumstance is one in which mental states are likely to be
mistaken. We tend to think in terms of an occasion or stretch of time or
action, but in reality the noble and far less noble states are changing
very rapidly and so at one moment there may be metta, the next attachment
and so on.
.....

Having said that, I sincerely hope you have no recurrence of the ‘episode’
that sent you to the ER and really appreciated your account of kindness
and compassion for the other patients. I’m quite sure you also helped
‘turn’ what might have been a difficult and unpleasant occasion for them
into a meaningful and happy one. They’re probably still talking about your
kindness;-)

The account was also an excellent example of how so often we think of a
particular ‘occasion’ or set of symptoms as being unpleasant (visit to ER
or unusual symptoms), but really the moments of vipaka (result of kamma)
through the sense doors are very brief and it’s the following unwholesome
mental states that are the real problem. Even the bodily experiences at
these times are not all unpleasant either as you’ve said.

Thank you, Howard, for sharing the fine examples of metta and compassion.
Who knows, but maybe, just maybe, these mental states had ‘cured’ the
problem by the time the drs started the tests;-))

Hoping you stay well and healthy,

Sarah
=====

> An example in this regard is what happened to me yesterday. I
> spent 
> yesterday afternoon through to 10 p.m. in the emergency room of a
> hospital. 
> (I had been experiencing frequent very odd, though, ironically, not 
> completely unpleasant, "episodes" yesterday which are quite difficult to
> 
> describe. Whatever it was, it was some sort of malfunction. All tests
> were 
> negative <snip>

	
13215

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:24am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Deciding how best to act

 	
Christine, DaiWen

Christine, your post to Sarah raises aspects of dhamma that some people have
difficulty coming to terms with. And it reminded me of a recent post of DaiWen's
that I had meant to comment on.

Christine said:
> Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't 
> act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of 
> another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama-vipaka 
> eventually? 
> Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, 
> speaking out about injustices, social action?

I agree that non-action can be as much an intentional choice as action. But as I
understand the teachings, the merits of any (non-) action are determined solely by
the quality of the accompanying mental state, and not to any extent by the
conventional outcome.

So is sympathetic action more likely to be kusala than non-action? I think each
person can only answer this by reference to their own experience. What may come
easily and naturally to one might be contrary to the nature of another. And for a
given person, much will depend on the kind of situation involved, anyway.

There is no inherent merit in one course rather than the other, since so much
depends on individual accumulations. In the end we all do what we are inclined to,
with what little kusala we can muster.

DaiWen's question raises similar issues:
> Given all this, I am not clear on what my role
> should be in terms of taking action or
> insisting on taking action against such an
> individual.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' thing to be done here. You can only (non-) act as
you see best. At least you have the benefit of some understanding of kusala and
akusala, kamma and vipaka. You know that the ultimate merit of any (non-) action
you may take will depend on the degree of kusala with which it is performed, while
its results as far as the parties involved are concerned will depend in part on the
kamma of those parties. This knowledge may help shape a decision that is different
from what it might otherwise have been.

Jon


--- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> wrote: > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All,
> 
> Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for me, accepting 
> that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause that aversion arises 
> time and again,' is not blame or pointing the finger at a particular 
> individual. In actual everday hands-on living of our lives, and 
> while understanding that complex conditions bring about suffering - 
> are we to ignore people being wronged, whether it is ourselves, dear 
> ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to attempt to assist or 
> protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are being treated 
> unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral neutrality? Should we 
> speak out about perceived injustices, or should we just say 'It's 
> their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings.. shows lack of 
> advancement in the practice yet, too much dosa,mana, clinging, or not 
> enough <choose label>' ? Often, it is easier to preserve silence, 
> than speak out and attract retribution, or risk losing valued 
> friendships....
> Non-action, like action, is an intentional choice. And if I don't 
> act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one action instead of 
> another, the results of that action or non-action are my kama-vipaka 
> eventually? 
> Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in need of protection, 
> speaking out about injustices, social action?
> Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin 
> Niemoellers "First They Came For"....
> "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't 
> speak up because I wasn't a communist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a 
> Jew. 
> Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because 
> I wasn't a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was 
> a protestant.
> Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to 
> speak for me." 
> Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to an ordinary person 
> being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but it is talking about 
> the importance of making a stand against wrong. Small daily 
> happenings are miniature reflections of what happens on a larger 
> scale nationally and internationally. When the harm being done (as 
> in the categories above) is to a person who is a little different to 
> the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be either opposed or 
> indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their faults and minimise (or 
> be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of those others doing 
> wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the majority(more like 
> us), and feel validated.
> So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world correctly and 
> unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and 
> equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind states, and be aware 
> when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean ignoring the suffering 
> of others when it could be ameliorated or prevented? Extending or 
> pervading metta, but taking no action? What do the Teachings say?
> 
> metta,
> Christine


	
13216

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:27am
Subject: RE: [dsg] Satipatthana and concepts/realities

 	
Frank

--- frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> wrote: > Hi Jon,
> I appreciate the explanation, but ultimately my
> confusion with the mindfulnless sutta (MN 10) has to
> do with lack of distinction between foundation #4
> (mindfulness of "mind objects") and the other
> foundations. In other words, foundation #4 seems to
> overlap heavily with the other 3 foundations

You may well be right, Frank, when you say there is overlap. It seems this way to
me, too. However, I don’t have any textual references on this point**.

> even
> though contemplation of "mind-objects" implies a
> distinct technique worth its own catgeory. 

However, we differ on this point :-). I don’t see the 4 foundations of mindfulness
as 'distinct techniques', since the sutta is not about *techniques* of any kind, to
my understanding.

According to the commentary, the division into 4 is simply for the purpose of
analytical explanation. In the commentary to the beginning of the section on
breathing it says:

"Now the Blessed One, desirous of bringing about diverse kinds of attainments of
distinction in beings by the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness, began to
teach the analytically explanatory portion [niddesavara] with the word "And how o
bhikkhus." 
He did that after *dividing into four the one mindfulness that is right* [ekameva
sammasatim] by way of the contemplation on the body, on feelings, on consciousness,
and on mental objects." 

The commentary also atthe end summarises the sutta by reference to the 21 objects of
satipatthana, and this of course ignores completely the classification into 4
foundations.

> Here's an example.
> Under contemplation of mind (3rd foundation):
> "He understands mind affected by lust as mind as mind
> affected by lust..."
> 
> Under contemplation of "mind-objeccts" (4th
> foundation) 5 hindrances section:
> "a monk understands, there is sensual desire in me; or
> ... there is no sensual desire in me."

One clear (to me) example of overlap is the inclusion of the 5 aggregates in the
section on 'dhammas (dhammanupasana). Since the 5 aggregates include all dhammas,
they include all the objects of satipatthana mentioned in the other 3 sections.

> Is there overlap/redundancy between 3rd and 4th
> foundation, or is there a distinct difference between
> those two methods of mindfulness?
> 
> To me, it seems like foundation #4 is just saying that
> any of the buddhist concepts/classifications that the
> buddha taught can be used as a framework or template
> to do the first 3 foundations of mindulness.
> Understood in this way, it makes sense to me. But if I
> treat the 4th foundation as a separate distinct
> method, as "mind-object" tends to imply, then I just
> become confounded because of so much overlap with the
> first 3 foundations. Jon, in your previous post you
> point out that the 4th foundation is a "real time"
> operation contemplating dhammas, but ALL FOUR
> foundations are real time, so again it is not
> something special to distinguish the 4th foundation.

I agree with this comment, Frank. I didn't mean to single out the 4th as being
special in this regard.

> Jon, I appreciate the time you took to explain some of
> the buddhist classifications that you use to interpret
> the 4th foundation, but to me, those classificaitons
> still do not separate the 4th foundation in such a way
> to make it very distinct, in the same way for example
> as mindfulness of form and mindfulness of feeling are
> very distinct.

The 4 foundations are distinct only as to their objects (not as to being techniques)
and even then there is a degree of overlap (to my understanding)

Jon

**PS I do recall seeing it suggested somewhere (Visuddhimagga ?) that any given
instance of satipatthana is 1 or other of the 4 foundations -- this could be read as
a implying that there is no overlap when properly understood.


	
13217

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:29am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Prompted/unprompted (was, ADL ch. 6 (18-23))

 	
Nina

Thanks very much for this information. Interesting that there are instances of
prompted dhammas where this is not an indication of weakness.

Jon

--- Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> wrote: > Dear Larry and Jon, I liked your
discussion on prompted and unprompted, and
> I could just add a detail I learnt from A. Sujin. Jhanacittas and lokuttara
> cittas are always reckoned as sasankharika, prompted. The reason: there have
> to be first maha-kusala cittas accompanied by pa~n~naa, which actually do
> the prompting. In Samatha pa~n~naa has to know exactly the conditions for
> being calm with the meditation subject, so that defilements are subdued. In
> Vipassana pa~n~naa has to understand clearly and thoroughly the dhamma at
> that moment as it is: impermanent, dukkha or anatta. I quote from Survey,
> Ch 20, Associated Dhammas:
> After explaining that only cittas of the sense-sphere are classified as
> prompted and unprompted, we read:
> < The cittas which are of a higher grade , namely, rupavacara cittas,
> arupavacara cittas, and lokuttara cittas, are not classified by way of
> asankharika and sasankharika. All of them are prompted, sasankharika. The
> reason for this is that they are dependent on the appropriate development as
> a necessary condition for their arising. In this context being sasankharika
> does not mean that they are weak such as in the case of kamavacara cittas
> which are prompted, sasankharika. Before rupavacara citta, arupavacara citta
> and lokuttara citta arise, there must each time be kamavacara citta
> accompanied by pa~n~naa.> end quote.
> Nina. 


	
13218

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:30am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities?

 	
Howard

--- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> 
> In a message dated 5/5/02 9:22:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> jonoabb@y... writes:

> > I'm not sure in what sense you would see visible or audible data as being 
> > 'phantom' or 'a
> > shadow'. The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for only a 
> > brief moment
> > doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own capable of being 
> > discerned by
> > consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 'individual essence'). Do you 
> > see a necessary
> > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)?
> > 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their own" 
> in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for 
> only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own 
> capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 
> 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their 
> very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which are 
> equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other 
> conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other conditions 
> are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing.

I think you are saying:
(a) Phenomena arise in dependence on conditions
(b) Something that arises in dependence on something else cannot have own-being
(c) Accordingly, these phenomena could not have a distinct characteristic

I am with you on (a) and (b), but not on (c). In the Abhidhamma, the attribute of
'empty of self' is not seen as necessarily connoting 'lacking own (i.e., distinct)
characteristic'.

Jon


	
13219

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:40am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders]

 	
Anders

I'm not sure that I have anything of substance to add to Dan's post(s), but I have
one or two comments on the Satipatthana Sutta itself.

--- anders_honore <anders.honore@g...> wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y...,
Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
> > Rob E
> > C. Sitting vipassana
> > You refer to long periods (3 years) sitting in vipassana meditation 
> leading to obvious
> > changes in one's sense of self. Can you point to any instance in 
> the texts of the Buddha
> > recommending such a practice, or any mention at all of 'sitting 
> vipassana meditation'.
> 
> The Satipatthana Sutta:
> 
> "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to 
> the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his 
> legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the 
> fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; 
> mindful he breathes out. "

It goes without saying, of course, that mindfulness can arise while one is sitting,
as in this passage from the sutta. The crucial question though is whether the
teachings recommend sitting *as a means to* the development of mindfulness.

In the passage you have quoted, the monk seems to be someone who is already adept at
mindfulness, since he is able to 'set mindfulness to the fore' and to maintain it
('always mindful') as he breathes. Note also that the mindfulness here is not yet
mindfulness related to *breathing* in particular -- that part of the sutta follows
after your passage.

Apart from that, however, there is the question of later passages in the same sutta.
If we read your passage as suggesting a *sitting practice* for mindfulness, then
how are we to read the follwing passages, also from the 'body' section:

"And further, O bhikkhus, when he is going, a bhikkhu understands: 'I am going';
when he is standing, he understands: 'I am standing'; when he is sitting, he
understands: 'I am sitting'; when he is lying down, he understands: 'I am lying
down'; or just as his body is disposed so he understands it. …
"And further, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu in walking, in standing (in a place), in sitting
(in some position), in sleeping, in waking, in speaking and in keeping silence, is a
person practising clear comprehension."

> And all the other foundations too.

To my reading of the sutta, the passage you have quoted refers to mindfulness of
breathing only, not to the other instances of mindfulness of the body and certainly
not to the other 3 'foundations'.

But the same question can be asked. Is the Buddha setting out a practice or
technique, or is he identifying the objects that mindfulness can take, without
limitation to the circumstances of their arising:

"Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust [or the other
kilesas], as with lust [etc.]; the consciousness without lust [etc.], as without
lust [etc.]; …"
[from the secion on citta/mind]
…
"How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental
objects of the five hindrances? 
"Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality [or any of the other hindrances] is present, a
bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality [etc.],' or when sensuality
[etc.] is not present, he knows with understanding: 'I have no sensuality [etc.].' …
"
[from the section on dhammas/mind-objects]

I hope this makes some sense to you, Anders. I realise the sutta is open to more
than one interpretation, but I think it is worth careful and repeated study.

Jon

	
13220

From: Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:43am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities?

 	
Howard

I hope you don’t mind me coming in on this thread (since this is a topic we are
discussing in another thread).

--- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert -
> In a message dated 5/3/02 4:48:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> robertkirkpatrick@r... writes:
> > Dhammas like feeling and anger and greed and hardness are real -
> > unlike concepts such as human and man - but dhammas are impermanent. 
> > A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is 
> > right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no 
> > matter we want it to stay or go. 
> > best wishes
> > robert
> > 
> > 
> ============================
> Yes, these dhammas exist, conditions exist - they are not imagined. 
> The question is what their mode of existence is. They are things-in-relation, 
> arising in dependence on other, similarly empty conditions, including 
> discernment (vi~n~nana). We tend to see them as separate and self-existing, 
> and that is avijja. 

I've pondered over this for some time, but remain puzzled about one or two of your
references. 

'Dhammas are things-in-relation'. What particular aspect do you have in mind here,
over and above the fact that dhammas are conditioned?

'We tend to see dhammas as separate'. I am not sure in what sense you mean this. 
Individual dhammas are said to be discrete, I believe, even when arising in
conjunction with other dhammas. Is it not more helpful to consider that we tend to
see wholes (concepts) and not the individual (i.e., separate) dhammas that are the
realities to which those concepts refer?

Jon

	
13221

From: christine_forsyth <cforsyth@v...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:49am
Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)[Kom]

 	
Dear Kom, and All,

Thank you for your post. Thought about it over the last couple of 
days and, no doubt, I'll continue to think about it. There is nothing 
in it that I could disagree with from a Dhamma point of view. Though 
I admit to having heavily researched 'other options'.:)
It seems that if I wished to find support for 'righteous anger' I 
shouldn't be a Theravadan....I should be a follower of 
Soka Gakkai International, as they are the only buddhists who don't 
strongly warn against it and, in fact, value it.
I have been reading an article called "The Divine Abidings - The Four 
Skillful Emotions Explained", which also discusses the point you 
made, that each of the divine abidings has a near enemy, which is a 
state which resembles the true abiding but misses it by being tinged 
with the defilements. And each also has a far enemy, which is its 
polar opposite and which cannot share the same mental continuum. 
http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/divabid.html
and regarding 'righteous anger'...
"We should especially be on guard for the arising of "righteous" 
anger. Remember that ill-will is a poison and that you are only 
hurting yourself, karmically and spiritually, when you harbour a 
grudge for an imagined, or even a real, wrong." 

I remember that recently 'elsewhere', we were talking about the 
surprising last line of the "Mulapariyaya Sutta - The Root Sequence"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html
>>"That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not 
delight in the Blessed One's words"<< 
I certainly understand how they felt....
It is hard to hear, and harder to accept, something that goes 
against how a person believes the world is, that is so much a part of 
a person, that they don't even know it is 'a belief', and not 'the 
way things are'..... things like that to 'fight injustice and evil, 
defend the poor and powerless' are always 'admirable' things to do. 
Social Work at the hospital is not going to feel quite the same after 
such a shaking up of certainty about motives.....it will be 
interesting observing myself over the next week or two. :-)

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kom Tukovinit <kom@a...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to know
> their characteristics, and know how they are different from
> lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when we think
> we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it may
> just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to those
> qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 qualities,
> from memory (so please check, if you have the
> opportunities!)
> 
> Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to mistake
> lobha for metta. For example, when we treat somebody kindly
> who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very difficult
> to tell.
> 
> Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing the
> Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa (unhappiness
> for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a thin,
> malnourished child, is the wish to do something for the
> child really driven by our need to drive away the unpleasant
> feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna?
> 
> Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see happiness
> of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by mudita?
> 
> Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some people
> mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent feeling as
> equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is the
> quality of not falling into unwholesome states. When we
> feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that lack of
> metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a knowledge that
> we cannot do anything for the person and that each person
> has kamma as their own?
> 
> We normally like to think good thing about ourselves (like
> we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, especially
> comparing to other people!), but without knowing these
> different qualities, then developing them to a high degree
> is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we actually
> have these qualities are just wishful thinking.
> 
> The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard akusala.
> What if we are in a situation that requires us to rebuke
> somebody to help others? My question would then be, is that
> rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking somebody out
> of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and one
> will certainly suffer the result of that akusala kamma, and
> enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for another. We
> need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is kusala,
> then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. Wishing
> it some way or another doesn't change the realities.
> 
> I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The
> Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3
> different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that
> the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd
> crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually
> found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get
> suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from
> unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this
> out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala,
> and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma.
> 
> I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all levels of
> kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an opportunity
> presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala or
> indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also have to
> remember, all these qualities rise because of conditions.
> Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably are
> conditioned by our own accumulations and the people with are
> associated with. However, with the Buddha's teachings, we
> can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing detailed
> teachings about these qualities and their enemies, by
> considering them in our daily lives, by knowing their
> benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by knowing
> them as they truly are: conditioned realities that fall away
> immediately that is neither self or ours.
> 
> kom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM
> > To: dhammastudygroup@y...
> > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6)
> >
> >
> > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All,
> >
> > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for
> > me, accepting
> > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause
> > that aversion arises
> > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the
> > finger at a particular
> > individual. In actual everday hands-on living
> > of our lives, and
> > while understanding that complex conditions
> > bring about suffering -
> > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether
> > it is ourselves, dear
> > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to
> > attempt to assist or
> > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are
> > being treated
> > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral
> > neutrality? Should we
> > speak out about perceived injustices, or should
> > we just say 'It's
> > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings..
> > shows lack of
> > advancement in the practice yet, too much
> > dosa,mana, clinging, or not
> > enough <choose label>' ? Often, it is easier to
> > preserve silence,
> > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk
> > losing valued
> > friendships....
> > Non-action, like action, is an intentional
> > choice. And if I don't
> > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one
> > action instead of
> > another, the results of that action or non-action
> > are my kama-vipaka
> > eventually?
> > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in
> > need of protection,
> > speaking out about injustices, social action?
> > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin
> > Niemoellers "First They Came For"....
> > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the
> > communists, and I didn't
> > speak up because I wasn't a communist.
> > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak
> > up because I wasn't a
> > Jew.
> > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I
> > didn't speak up because
> > I wasn't a trade unionist.
> > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't
> > speak up because I was
> > a protestant.
> > Then they came for me, and by that time there was
> > no one left to
> > speak for me."
> > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to
> > an ordinary person
> > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but
> > it is talking about
> > the importance of making a stand against wrong.
> > Small daily
> > happenings are miniature reflections of what
> > happens on a larger
> > scale nationally and internationally. When the
> > harm being done (as
> > in the categories above) is to a person who is a
> > little different to
> > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be
> > either opposed or
> > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their
> > faults and minimise (or
> > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of
> > those others doing
> > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the
> > majority(more like
> > us), and feel validated.
> > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world
> > correctly and
> > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion,
> > sympathetic joy, and
> > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind
> > states, and be aware
> > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean
> > ignoring the suffering
> > of others when it could be ameliorated or
> > prevented? Extending or
> > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do
> > the Teachings say?
> >
> > metta,
> > Christine
> >
	
13222

From: robertkirkpatrick.rm <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 4:29am
Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
---
Dear Kom.
This is very good post. I was especially interested in the piece:I 
reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The
> Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3
> different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that
> the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd
> crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually
> found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get
> suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from
> unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this
> out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala,
> and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma.""
I haven't read this in English, did you get it in the Thai?
A similar thing happened withregard to the Buddha's attainment, As 
you know it took him 6years after he left the palce before finally 
reaching samasambuddha. This is not usual for a bodhisatta in the 
life they attain and most become Buddhas on the very day they leave 
laylife. The Buddha of this time spent most of the 6years caught up 
useless austerities. This was because in his last human life 
(vessantara), when he gave his children to the Brahmin, he had a few 
moments of aversion when he heard the Brahmin beating them as he 
went away. (I'm doing this from memory so might have a detail 
wrong). Fortunately he quickly conquered the defilement and was able 
to perfect the parami.
best wishes
robert

In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kom Tukovinit <kom@a...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> I think the key to develop the 4-brahma vihara is to know
> their characteristics, and know how they are different from
> lobha, dosa, and moha. Without knowing this, when we think
> we are having metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha, it may
> just be wishful thinking out of our attachment to those
> qualities. Let me list the near enemies of the 4 qualities,
> from memory (so please check, if you have the
> opportunities!)
> 
> Metta has lobha as its near enemy. It is easy to mistake
> lobha for metta. For example, when we treat somebody kindly
> who is dear to us, is that metta or lobha? Very difficult
> to tell.
> 
> Karuna has dosa as its near enemy. Without hearing the
> Buddha's teachings, some people mistake dosa (unhappiness
> for other people's misery) as karuna. When we see a thin,
> malnourished child, is the wish to do something for the
> child really driven by our need to drive away the unpleasant
> feeling (domanassa) or is it driven by karuna?
> 
> Mudita has lobha as its near enemy. When we see happiness
> of somebody dear to us, is that by attachment or by mudita?
> 
> Equanimity has ignorance as its near enemy. Some people
> mistake ignorance and its associated indifferent feeling as
> equanimity (often stated as upekkha). Equanimity is the
> quality of not falling into unwholesome states. When we
> feel indifferent toward someone's plight, is that lack of
> metta (and lack of equanimity) or is there a knowledge that
> we cannot do anything for the person and that each person
> has kamma as their own?
> 
> We normally like to think good thing about ourselves (like
> we have metta, karuna, mudita, and equanmity, especially
> comparing to other people!), but without knowing these
> different qualities, then developing them to a high degree
> is impossible, and a lot of time, thinking that we actually
> have these qualities are just wishful thinking.
> 
> The thing is to develop kusala, and to discard akusala.
> What if we are in a situation that requires us to rebuke
> somebody to help others? My question would then be, is that
> rebuke done out of kusala or akusala? Rebuking somebody out
> of anger to help other people are akusala kamma, and one
> will certainly suffer the result of that akusala kamma, and
> enjoy the fruit out of the kusala intention for another. We
> need to be straight and true to the dhamma: if it is kusala,
> then it is kusala; if it is akusala, it is akusala. Wishing
> it some way or another doesn't change the realities.
> 
> I reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The
> Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3
> different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the Buddha that
> the water was unsuitable for drinking because of recent herd
> crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually
> found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha couldn't get
> suitable water was said to be his chasing away his herd from
> unsuitable water in a previous live. Although he did this
> out of good intention, but akusala alternated with kusala,
> and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma.
> 
> I believe the Buddha encouraged us to develop all levels of
> kusala (dana, sila, and bhavana) whenever an opportunity
> presents itself. He certainly didn't praise akusala or
> indifferent feeling (out of ignorance). But we also have to
> remember, all these qualities rise because of conditions.
> Without hearing the Buddha's teaching, they probably are
> conditioned by our own accumulations and the people with are
> associated with. However, with the Buddha's teachings, we
> can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing detailed
> teachings about these qualities and their enemies, by
> considering them in our daily lives, by knowing their
> benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by knowing
> them as they truly are: conditioned realities that fall away
> immediately that is neither self or ours.
> 
> kom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...]
> > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 2:56 AM
> > To: dhammastudygroup@y...
> > Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6)
> >
> >
> > Dear Sarah, (Larry) and All,
> >
> > Interesting post, Sarah. The real question for
> > me, accepting
> > that 'our accumulation of dosa is the real cause
> > that aversion arises
> > time and again,' is not blame or pointing the
> > finger at a particular
> > individual. In actual everday hands-on living
> > of our lives, and
> > while understanding that complex conditions
> > bring about suffering -
> > are we to ignore people being wronged, whether
> > it is ourselves, dear
> > ones, or even perfect strangers? Are we not to
> > attempt to assist or
> > protect (in a non-violent way) those we feel are
> > being treated
> > unfairly and suffering? Is there total moral
> > neutrality? Should we
> > speak out about perceived injustices, or should
> > we just say 'It's
> > their fruits of kamma' or 'Uh-huh hurt feelings..
> > shows lack of
> > advancement in the practice yet, too much
> > dosa,mana, clinging, or not
> > enough <choose label>' ? Often, it is easier to
> > preserve silence,
> > than speak out and attract retribution, or risk
> > losing valued
> > friendships....
> > Non-action, like action, is an intentional
> > choice. And if I don't
> > act, when I could have acted, or if I choose one
> > action instead of
> > another, the results of that action or non-action
> > are my kama-vipaka
> > eventually?
> > Does Buddhism encourage protection of those in
> > need of protection,
> > speaking out about injustices, social action?
> > Does Buddhism have any equivalent of Reverend Marin
> > Niemoellers "First They Came For"....
> > "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the
> > communists, and I didn't
> > speak up because I wasn't a communist.
> > Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak
> > up because I wasn't a
> > Jew.
> > Then the came for the trade unionists, and I
> > didn't speak up because
> > I wasn't a trade unionist.
> > Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't
> > speak up because I was
> > a protestant.
> > Then they came for me, and by that time there was
> > no one left to
> > speak for me."
> > Seemingly a dramatic quote of course, compared to
> > an ordinary person
> > being treated unfairly in daily interactions, but
> > it is talking about
> > the importance of making a stand against wrong.
> > Small daily
> > happenings are miniature reflections of what
> > happens on a larger
> > scale nationally and internationally. When the
> > harm being done (as
> > in the categories above) is to a person who is a
> > little different to
> > the majority, or to whom the majority seem to be
> > either opposed or
> > indifferent, how easy it is to magnify their
> > faults and minimise (or
> > be unable to hear or see clearly) the role of
> > those others doing
> > wrong. How easy to look for the approval of the
> > majority(more like
> > us), and feel validated.
> > So what is a Buddhist to do, to live in the world
> > correctly and
> > unselfishly, with loving-kindness, compassion,
> > sympathetic joy, and
> > equanimity regarding others? Watch our own mind
> > states, and be aware
> > when dosa arises. Is that all? Does this mean
> > ignoring the suffering
> > of others when it could be ameliorated or
> > prevented? Extending or
> > pervading metta, but taking no action? What do
> > the Teachings say?
> >
> > metta,
> > Christine
> >
	
13223

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:11am
Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 5/12/02 1:59:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:


> The Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) is making the point that -- 
> insight is key in overcoming ignorance and concentration (serenity) is key 
> in 
> overcoming agitation. Also that insight and concentration (serenity) must 
> be 
> combined in order to emerge (break free) from defilements.
> 
> 
=================================
Could you please direct me to where this can be found (what pages or 
section) in this work. I have a copy of the Path of Discrimination, but I 
find it isn't the easiest work to read. 
BTW, I personally think that this is really more of a commentarial 
work than something that properly belongs in the sutta pitaka. (This is not 
to say that I think little of it. In fact, I very much like, for example, the 
fact that is discusses sabhava (own-being/self-nature) and, on my reading, 
denies it. But what I like in it or don't is irrelevant to whether or not it 
properly belongs in the sutta pitaka and whether or not it is actual word of 
the Buddha.)

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13224

From: wynn <wewynal@t...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:14am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Iddhi: To Wynn, Sarah, Kom

 	
Hi Suan,

Thank you for your reply. You certainly make it very clear now.

Thanks,
Wynn
	
13225

From: Nina van Gorkom <nilo@e...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:23am
Subject: Re: [dsg] giving protection, abhaya dana

 	
op 10-05-2002 14:58 schreef Bodhi2500@a... op Bodhi2500@a...:

> (1)The perfection of giving,firstly,is to be practised by benefitting beings
> in many ways-by relinquishing ones happiness,belongings,body and life to
> others,by dispelling their fear and by instructing them in the dhamma.
> 
> (then we jump to the dispelling their fear section)
> 
> The Giving of fearlessness is the giving of protection to beings when they
> have become frightened on account of
> kings,thieves,fire,water,enemies,lions,tigers,other wild
> beasts,dragons,orges,demons,goblins etc.
> 
Dear Bodhi 2500, (sorry, I do not know your name), and all,
I am translating A. Sujin's book on the perfections, and was just about to
type what you quoted. I consider these days abhaya dana, the giving of
fearlessness, a lot. When there is this kind of dana, we have no grudges, we
forgive wrongs and have goodwill for the person who was unpleasant. A. Sujin
in her book stresses how all the perfections are connected and come into
play. I find it inspiring to see forgiving as a kind of dana. In Thai to
<give abhaya> is to forgive. (Maybe Kom can say more about this)
A. Sujin writes:

<There is another kind of dåna, generosity. Someone who develops the
perfections should consider the gift of fearlessness, or forgiving,
abhayadåna. If someone does not know that this is a perfection he will not
forgive someone else who has done him wrong. We should reflect on the gift
of fearlessness: if we do not forgive others how can we attain enlightenment
and eradicate defilements? This may be a condition for the gift of
fearlessness. This is a way of generosity higher than the giving of material
things, åmisa dåna. If we cannot forgive someone we do not like, we cannot
develop other kinds of kusala either with regard to this person. Even
material things that we could give such a person we are unable to give,
because we do not forgive him or we are still angry with him. For the same
reasons we cannot even give him the gift of Dhamma, Dhamma dåna, in helping
him with Dhamma discussion, or advise him as to what is useful in life and
what is not useful.
The gift of fearlessness or forgiving is the condition for the perfection of
morality, síla pårami, to develop; it is the condition for abstinence of
wrong action and speech we could commit towards someone we have not
forgiven. We should consider how our action and speech would be towards a
person we have not forgiven. Our conduct would not be as a friend and thus
kusala could not develop. How could we than cross over to the other shore,
namely, the eradication of defilements?
This shows us that our consideration of the nature of kusala in daily life
should be very refined. >

She then explains how essential panna is for the development of the
perfections. 
I had something happen to me. A family member I call X has done some
injustice to me, and although it was my duty to visit X, I thought, to what
use is my visit, I have so many other things to do, X will not appreciate
it. After deliberation with my husband I thought it was good to have metta
for X, to forgive X. So we see if there is dosa left we cannot even do other
kinds of kusala. My kusala is often sasankharika, induced or prompted.
Or it happens that I forgive, but aversion arises again. That means, not
enough accumulation of the perfections. Also patience is important. I like
the commentary to the Cariyapitaka: there should be an unpleasant person,
otherwise we cannot train in patience. This is like an example given once by
Eric, taken from the Mahayana tradition, that your enemy can be your
teacher. So, we should be glad when someone speaks harsh words to us, or
write harsh E mails to us. A. Sujin said in her book that some people appear
to be very patient and others do not. Those who are patient have trained
this virtue she said. She has an immense amount herself. Dan and Eric
discussed training, and as Dan said, no self who directs the training, but
there can be training in the perfections, in patience, and that can be a
real hard training! How much can we stand ? We have to think also of very
unimportant happenings in daily life, dropping something on the floor,
breaking a dish, hearing loud music, stumbling.
I had just written this and then there was small chaos in my kitchen,
dropping small frozen bits of patatoe on the kitchen floor while I was
frying in hot oil. Picking them up one by one. Just as well I had written
about patience in small things! Realities present themselves and we can
never know what will happen: reflection on patience or awareness of it as
only a kind of nama, cold presenting itself, or clinging to the fact of
remembering patience. They present themselves in a unsystematical way; I did
not select to remember patience, I did not select cold. How could we first
be aware of rupa, then of feeling, then of citta and then of dhamma? I do
not see anything systematical here.

It is especially panna that is the condition for training in the
perfections, because, as Kom said, you have to know the citta well, know the
good qualities and their near enemies. I cannot resist quoting the end of
his post I appreciate so much:

<However, with the Buddha's teachings, we
can develop them to the finest degree, by hearing detailed
teachings about these qualities and their enemies, by
considering them in our daily lives, by knowing their
benefits and the faults of their opposites, and by knowing
them as they truly are: conditioned realities that fall away
immediately that is neither self or ours.>

Now that I am in the mood of quoting, I also was particularly happy with
Sarah's post about encouragement to remember the brahma viharas when writing
E mails, and about situations where we are wronged or dear ones who are
wronged by others:

<However, when we are objecting and
finding ourselves and those we find dear’ so important, we forget about
metta, compassion and other noble qualities. We forget about conditions
both for the others’ words and actions and also we forget about kamma and
other factors which lead us (and our dear ones) to hear ,experience and
interpret as we do.>
I find that it helps to realize that the cittas which inspired harsh words
and the cittas which were unpleasant experiences have fallen away
immediately. Why holding on to it.
With appreciation of all the good posts that remind me to develop the
perfections,
Nina. 



	
13226

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 2:35am
Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Hi, Sarah -

Thanks for the kind wishes. I seem to be fine now. Evidently, what 
occurred was an interaction between grapefruit and, mainly, Lipitor, a 
cholesterol-controlling medication, as well as with several other medications 
I take. It turns out that grapefruit interacts badly with numerous common 
medications, a fact that would be good for people to know. I even found 
several web sites dealing with this topic, one of which is the following: 
http://www.powernetdesign.com/grapefruit Actually, I've been told by a 
pharmacist that people have died from grapefruit-medication interactions.
As you correctly point out, with regard to feelings of compassion etc, 
and other mind-state characteristics, most mind-moments, let alone their 
detailed characteristics, are missed by us. Our attention, our mindfulness 
and clear comprehension, is generally far too gross, not anywhere 
sufficiently microscopic, to see clearly the detailed moment-to-moment flux 
of mindstates, especially during "ordinary" (i.e. non-meditative) 
circumstances, and the best we can usually do is to get an overall sense of 
what predominates, along with an occasional focussing in on greater detail.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 5/12/02 2:46:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sarahdhhk@y... writes:


> 
> Dear Howard,
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote: 
> 
> > I think it is very useful to be 
> > particularly mindful on those occasions at which one of them seems to be
> > in 
> > effect with regard to a stranger, for that is a likely circumstance for
> > us 
> > not to be mistaken.
> .....
> Speaking for myself, there is so much ignorance accumulated, that any
> occasion or circumstance is one in which mental states are likely to be
> mistaken. We tend to think in terms of an occasion or stretch of time or
> action, but in reality the noble and far less noble states are changing
> very rapidly and so at one moment there may be metta, the next attachment
> and so on.
> .....
> 
> Having said that, I sincerely hope you have no recurrence of the ‘episode’
> that sent you to the ER and really appreciated your account of kindness
> and compassion for the other patients. I’m quite sure you also helped
> ‘turn’ what might have been a difficult and unpleasant occasion for them
> into a meaningful and happy one. They’re probably still talking about your
> kindness;-)
> 
> The account was also an excellent example of how so often we think of a
> particular ‘occasion’ or set of symptoms as being unpleasant (visit to ER
> or unusual symptoms), but really the moments of vipaka (result of kamma)
> through the sense doors are very brief and it’s the following unwholesome
> mental states that are the real problem. Even the bodily experiences at
> these times are not all unpleasant either as you’ve said.
> 
> Thank you, Howard, for sharing the fine examples of metta and compassion.
> Who knows, but maybe, just maybe, these mental states had ‘cured’ the
> problem by the time the drs started the tests;-))
> 
> Hoping you stay well and healthy,
> 
> Sarah
> =====
> 
> > An example in this regard is what happened to me yesterday. I
> > spent 
> > yesterday afternoon through to 10 p.m. in the emergency room of a
> > hospital. 
> > (I had been experiencing frequent very odd, though, ironically, not 
> > completely unpleasant, "episodes" yesterday which are quite difficult to
> > 
> > describe. Whatever it was, it was some sort of malfunction. All tests
> > were 
> > negative <snip>
> 
> 


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13227

From: yuzhonghao <victoryu@s...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:53am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Sitting and mindfulness [Anders]

 	
Hi Jon, Anders and all,

I would like to share some thoughts regarding the practice of 
satipatthana.

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott <jonoabb@y...> wrote:
[snip]
> > The Satipatthana Sutta:
> > 
> > "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, 
to 
> > the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding 
his 
> > legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to 
the 
> > fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes 
in; 
> > mindful he breathes out. "
> 
> It goes without saying, of course, that mindfulness can arise while 
one is sitting,
> as in this passage from the sutta. The crucial question though is 
whether the
> teachings recommend sitting *as a means to* the development of 
mindfulness.
> 


The teaching in Satipatthana Sutta describes how satipatthana is 
practiced; thus whether the teaching recommends sitting as a means to 
the development of mindfulness is subject to speculation. 

Having read that the Buddha said:

"There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to 
the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his 
legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the 
fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; 
mindful he breathes out. "

the unnamed monk the Buddha mentioned in the discourse is a model 
that I would emulate. And this is how I learn how to establish 
mindfulness from reading the Satipatthana Sutta: following the 
examples in the discourse and emulate them. It is a process 
of "learning by doing" and takes repetitive practice.

Regards,
Victor
	
13228

From: Kom Tukovinit <kom@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 7:12am
Subject: RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): dukkha Kiriya

 	
Dear Robert,

The piece, I believe, comes from the commentaries from
Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The piece that you heard about
dukkha-kiriya is also interesting. Another story (related
one?) about why he had to do that for 6 years is because in
one life, when the bodhi-satta was associated with people
with the wrong view, he criticized a samma-sambuddha "the
balded sammana's dispensation is truly hard", and hence he
had to do dukkha-kiriya for 6 years before he reached the
attainment.

kkkkm

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robertkirkpatrick.rm
> [mailto:robertkirkpatrick@r...]
> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 4:30 AM
> To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)
>
>
> ---
> Dear Kom.
> This is very good post. I was especially
> interested in the piece:I
> reiterate the story from Maha-pari-nibbana sutta. The
> > Buddha asked V. Ananda for water (when he was sick) 3
> > different times, but V. Ananda mentioned to the
> Buddha that
> > the water was unsuitable for drinking because
> of recent herd
> > crossing. The Buddha insisted, and V. Ananda eventually
> > found suitable water. The fact that the Buddha
> couldn't get
> > suitable water was said to be his chasing away
> his herd from
> > unsuitable water in a previous live. Although
> he did this
> > out of good intention, but akusala alternated
> with kusala,
> > and the bad vipaka resulted from the akusala kamma.""
> I haven't read this in English, did you get it in
> the Thai?
> A similar thing happened withregard to the
> Buddha's attainment, As
> you know it took him 6years after he left the
> palce before finally
> reaching samasambuddha. This is not usual for a
> bodhisatta in the
> life they attain and most become Buddhas on the
> very day they leave
> laylife. The Buddha of this time spent most of
> the 6years caught up
> useless austerities. This was because in his last
> human life
> (vessantara), when he gave his children to the
> Brahmin, he had a few
> moments of aversion when he heard the Brahmin
> beating them as he
> went away. (I'm doing this from memory so might
> have a detail
> wrong). Fortunately he quickly conquered the
> defilement and was able
> to perfect the parami.
> best wishes
> robert
	
13229

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:36am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities?

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 5/12/02 5:38:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jonoabb@y... writes:


> 
> Howard
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon -
> > 
> > In a message dated 5/5/02 9:22:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> > jonoabb@y... writes:
> 
> > > I'm not sure in what sense you would see visible or audible data as 
> being 
> > > 'phantom' or 'a
> > > shadow'. The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last for 
> only a 
> > > brief moment
> > > doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their own capable of 
> being 
> > > discerned by
> > > consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 'individual essence'). Do 
> you 
> > > see a necessary
> > > contradiction in these 2 attributes (conditionality vs. own essence)?
> > > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > Howard:
> > The problem I have here is with the adjectival phrase "of their 
> own" 
> > in the sentence "The fact that these phenomena are conditioned and last 
> for 
> > only a brief moment doesn't mean that they lack characteristics of their 
> own 
> > capable of being discerned by consciousness accompanied by panna (termed 
> > 'individual essence')." Everything about these phenomena, including their 
> 
> > very existence, arises in total dependence on conditions, all of which 
> are 
> > equally empty of own-being. What arises in total dependence on other 
> > conditions does not have own-being, and inasmuch as these other 
> conditions 
> > are equally without own-being, the emptiness is thoroughgoing.
> 
> I think you are saying:
> (a) Phenomena arise in dependence on conditions
> (b) Something that arises in dependence on something else cannot have 
> own-being
> (c) Accordingly, these phenomena could not have a distinct characteristic
> 
> I am with you on (a) and (b), but not on (c). In the Abhidhamma, the 
> attribute of
> 'empty of self' is not seen as necessarily connoting 'lacking own (i.e., 
> distinct)
> characteristic'.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
================================
I wouldn't be with me on (c) either! ;-)) I would not say: 
"Accordingly, these phenomena could not have a distinct characteristic" It is 
not that they do not have distinct characteristics. They do. Phenomena do 
have characteristics. We recognize phenomena based on their characteristics. 
What is the case is that these characteristics are not *intrinsic*, not 
"owned", but arise in dependence on other empty conditions. The very 
phenomena, themselves, as existents, are not self-owned, but depend on their 
characteristics (in fact, cannot be separated from them), depend on being 
discerned, and arise, as by a conjurer's trick, from the confluence of other 
empty phenomena. 
I don't think we differ on the facts, Jon, but on how we think about 
them. We differ, I think, on our emphasis. There is also a difference, I 
think, in "flavor". My sense of things is that of a thoroughgoing 
impersonality and insubstantiality, without discrete, separate, independent, 
self-existence. 

With metta,
Howard



/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13230

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] 4 Ultimate Realities?

 	
Hi, Jon -

I just sent off a reply to another post of yours which, I think, will 
serve as a reply to this one as well. I'll leave this, for you to look at 
that other reply. The central question, as I see it, is the question of 
confounding discreteness in occurrence with independent existence, with 
self-existence.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 5/12/02 5:48:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jonoabb@y... writes:


> 
> Howard
> 
> I hope you don’t mind me coming in on this thread (since this is a topic we 
> are
> discussing in another thread).
> 
> --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert -
> > In a message dated 5/3/02 4:48:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes:
> > > Dhammas like feeling and anger and greed and hardness are real -
> > > unlike concepts such as human and man - but dhammas are impermanent. 
> > > A dhamma cannot be changed into something other than what it is 
> > > right now, but it lasts for an infinitely brief instant only, no 
> > > matter we want it to stay or go. 
> > > best wishes
> > > robert
> > > 
> > > 
> > ============================
> > Yes, these dhammas exist, conditions exist - they are not 
> imagined. 
> > The question is what their mode of existence is. They are 
> things-in-relation, 
> > arising in dependence on other, similarly empty conditions, including 
> > discernment (vi~n~nana). We tend to see them as separate and 
> self-existing, 
> > and that is avijja. 
> 
> I've pondered over this for some time, but remain puzzled about one or two 
> of your
> references. 
> 
> 'Dhammas are things-in-relation'. What particular aspect do you have in 
> mind here,
> over and above the fact that dhammas are conditioned?
> 
> 'We tend to see dhammas as separate'. I am not sure in what sense you mean 
> this. 
> Individual dhammas are said to be discrete, I believe, even when arising in
> conjunction with other dhammas. Is it not more helpful to consider that we 
> tend to
> see wholes (concepts) and not the individual (i.e., separate) dhammas that 
> are the
> realities to which those concepts refer?
> 
> Jon
> 
> 


/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13231

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:49am
Subject: On the Realist Interpretation

 	
/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13232

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:50am
Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation

 	
Whoops! Hit the send button WAY too soon! ;-) I'll try again.

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13233

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:52am
Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa

 	
In a message dated 5/12/2002 6:14:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:



> Could you please direct me to where this can be found (what pages or 
> section) in this work. I have a copy of the Path of Discrimination, but I 
> find it isn't the easiest work to read. 
> BTW, I personally think that this is really more of a commentarial 
> work than something that properly belongs in the sutta pitaka. (This is not 
> to say that I think little of it. In fact, I very much like, for example, 
> the 
> fact that is discusses sabhava (own-being/self-nature) and, on my reading, 
> denies it. But what I like in it or don't is irrelevant to whether or not 
> it 
> properly belongs in the sutta pitaka and whether or not it is actual word 
> of 
> the Buddha.)
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 



Hi Howard

In the "Path of Discrimination" the "Treatise on Coupling" Page 287 -- 295 
deals heavily with the issue of insight and serenity combining. 

I agree with your analysis of the Patisambhidamagga. I think of it as a 
hybrid between Sutta and Abhidhamma. It seems closer to Sutta based than 
Abhidhamma based, which may be why they put it in the 5th Nikaya.

This book is a marvel of insight analysis. Ven. Nanamoli died before it was 
"polished" and the one problem I have with the translation is his use of the 
word "idea" for dhamma. He was experimenting with it and I doubt he would 
have kept it in if he had been alive but that is 100% speculation. Anyway, I 
find if I substitute the word "state(s)" for his "idea(s)" the work makes 
much more sense 99% of the time.

This text requires full concentration throughout and takes several readings 
before its structure becomes more apparent and makes it an "easier read." 
Nevertheless, its like a nursery rhyme compared to the Dhammasangani or 
Patthana. LOL

TG


	
13234

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 7:15am
Subject: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi, all - 

The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it 
constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I 
believe, never mailed:
In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a 
dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it is 
independent in the sense that those conditions which came together resulting 
in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. 
Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally.
Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its 
cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which caused 
it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is a 
true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have both 
substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory!
A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate that 
a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of the 
genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the 
Buddha's Dhamma.
Comments, anyone?

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13235

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 7:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory

 	
In a message dated 5/12/2002 11:18:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:


> 
> 
> The following is in response to recent conversations on DSG, and it 
> constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote out, but, I 
> believe, never mailed:
> In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in which a 
> dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in effect, it 
> is 
> independent in the sense that those conditions which came together 
> resulting 
> in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no longer exist. 
> Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and unconditionally.
> Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes condition its 
> cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions which caused 
> it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the dhamma is a 
> true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we have both 
> substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same theory!
> A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to indicate 
> that 
> a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional theory of 
> the 
> genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics of the 
> Buddha's Dhamma.
> Comments, anyone?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 

My comment is its bogus. Dhamma here meaning "living teachings of dhamma." 
The Buddha clearly states all sorts of reasons why Dhamma continues to become 
or does not continue to become. Its not magic. Its Dependent Arising.

TG

PS I hope I understood what you were talking about. LOL


	
13236

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 8:57am
Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 5/12/02 2:54:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:


> My comment is its bogus. Dhamma here meaning "living teachings of dhamma." 
> 
> The Buddha clearly states all sorts of reasons why Dhamma continues to 
> become 
> or does not continue to become. Its not magic. Its Dependent Arising.
> 
> TG
> 
> PS I hope I understood what you were talking about. LOL
> 
========================
I'm not certain whether you understand me or not. Are we in agreement 
or disagreement on this?

With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 




	
13237

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 3:58pm
Subject: Re: 4 brahmavihara, 4 near enemies RE: [dsg] ADL ch.6 (1-6): indifferent (long)

 	
Dear Frank (& Kom),

--- frank kuan <fcckuan@y...> wrote: > Hi Kom,
> Do you know which suttas describe the 4 near
> enemies? According to my recollection of what Jack
> Kornfield's book said (i.e. 2 levels of
> unverifiedness) :
> 
> near enemy of sympathetic joy (mudita) is jealousy,
> near enemy of equanimity (upekkha) is
> indifference/apathy
***** 

Let me add the following extract (which I posted ages ago) from the
Atthasalini below.

I understand that the near enemy of mudita (sympathetic joy) is “joy based
on the homelife” (Vis, 1X,100), i.e happiness connected with attachment.
The far enemy is dislike or aversion. In the Vis, it mentions “aversion
(boredom)”. The proximate cause for both mudita and jealousy is the same,
however and that is someone else’s good fortune.

With regard to upekkha (equanimity), the Atth below mentions delusion
accompanied by indifference as the near enemy. In the Vis (1X, 101) we
read that “equanimity has the equanimity of unknowing based on the home
life as its near enemy”.Below we read lusta and aversion are the far
enemies (“greed and resentment” in the Vis. translation). 
*****
QUOTE
> from the Atthasalini (PTS edition p.260):

..Each of them has two enemies, near and distant. To expand: of the Divine

State of love <metta> the near enemy is lust, because, like love, it sees 
merits. It is like a foe lurking near a man. Quickly it finds access. 
Hence love should be well protected from lust. Ill-will is its distant 
enemy. From its dissimilarity in nature it is like a man's foe dwelling in

a mountain fastness, etc. hence love should be cultivated secure from 
ill-will. It is impossible that one should cultivate love and at the same 
time get angry.

As to pity <karuna>, one who views visible objects, desirable, lovable, 
endearing, delightful, associated with craving, objects which have not
been 
obtained formerly as now past, ceased, changed, is filled with the sorrow 
called worldly. This, because it also contemplates adversity, is the near 
enemy of the Divine State of pity. From its dissimilarity in nature
cruelty 
is the distant enemy. Hence pity should be cultivated secure from cruelty.

It is impossible that one should cultivate pity and at the same time
strike 
with the hand etc.

As to sympathy (mudita), one who views visible objects, desirable, etc, is

filled with joy called wordly. This, because it also contemplates 
prosperity, is the near enemy of the Divine State of sympathy. From its 
dissimilarity in nature dislike is its distant enemy. Hence sympathy
should 
be cultivated secure from it. It is impossible that one should by 
sympathetic and at the same time be discontented with secluded monasteries

or with the higher moral states <adhikusaladhammesu>.

The fool who has seen a visible object and who is deluded, an average man 
who has not overcome the limits of his lower nature and result of former 
births, who does not see the evils of all conditioned things, is 
unacquainted with the teaching- this average man is filled with such 
indifference as is not able to transcend the visible object. Hence it is 
called worldly, and is mere delusion. Owing to its similarity in not 
considering faults and merits, it is the near enemy of the Divine State of

equanimity (upekkha>. From their dissimilarity in nature, both lust and 
aversion are its distant enemies. Hence equanimity should be cultivated 
secure from them. It is impossible that one should cultivate equanimity, 
and at the same time be enamoured with, or hurt another....

<End Quote>
*****

Thanks for encouraging me to check,

Sarah
====


	
13238

From: robertkirkpatrick.rm <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:34pm
Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory

 	
Dear Howard,
In theravada there is no possibilty of any dhamma , except nibbana, 
existing "alone and unconditionally.". Just one example: ALL dhammas 
(except nibbana) have arammana paccaya (object condition) as one of 
their present conditions.
best wishes
robert
--- --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, all - 
> 
> The following is in response to recent conversations on 
DSG, and it 
> constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote 
out, but, I 
> believe, never mailed:
> In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in 
which a 
> dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in 
effect, it is 
> independent in the sense that those conditions which came together 
resulting 
> in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no 
longer exist. 
> Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and 
unconditionally.
> Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes 
condition its 
> cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions 
which caused 
> it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the 
dhamma is a 
> true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we 
have both 
> substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same 
theory!
> A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to 
indicate that 
> a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional 
theory of the 
> genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics 
of the 
> Buddha's Dhamma.
> Comments, anyone?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard


13239

From: robertkirkpatrick.rm <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:41pm
Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory correction.

 	
---
Sorry, I should have said that For instance all cittas have arammana 
paccaya as one of their present conditions.
In dhammastudygroup@y..., "robertkirkpatrick.rm" 
<robertkirkpatrick@r...> wrote:
> Dear Howard,
> In theravada there is no possibilty of any dhamma , except 
nibbana, 
> existing "alone and unconditionally.". Just one example: ALL 
dhammas 
> (except nibbana) have arammana paccaya (object condition) as one 
of 
> their present conditions.
> best wishes
> robert
> --- --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> > Hi, all - 
> > 
> > The following is in response to recent conversations on 
> DSG, and it 
> > constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote 
> out, but, I 
> > believe, never mailed:
> > In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in 
> which a 
> > dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in 
> effect, it is 
> > independent in the sense that those conditions which came 
together 
> resulting 
> > in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no 
> longer exist. 
> > Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and 
> unconditionally.
> > Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes 
> condition its 
> > cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions 
> which caused 
> > it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the 
> dhamma is a 
> > true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus 
we 
> have both 
> > substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same 
> theory!
> > A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to 
> indicate that 
> > a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional 
> theory of the 
> > genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with 
basics 
> of the 
> > Buddha's Dhamma.
> > Comments, anyone?
> > 
> > With metta,
> > Howard


13240

From: onco111 <dalthorp@o...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:41pm
Subject: Re: "ritual" [reply to Frank]

 	
Dear Frank,

> What I mean is that progress in yoga and spiritual
> practice does not always show tangible incremental
> signs of improvement on a daily basis. Months can pass
> before progress is seen, but the crucial point is that
> those months of seeming non-progress laid the
> foundation for the "breakthrough". We must not cease
> persistent practice if we do not get instant results.
> There is no other way to create fertile conditions for
> genuine insight to arise.

When I first started practicing meditation with an intensive 2-week 
retreat, I saw a lot of what I called "progress" on a daily basis. I 
was delighted, even ecstatic at how wonderful it all was. When I 
discussed this with a monk as I was returning home, he told me that 
the delight with the calm and the special sensual experiences would 
fade shortly, and, of course, he was right.

After going back home, I found that nothing had really changed, 
despite the (mistaken) perception of great progress. I got into a 
pattern of intensive retreat (10 days to 4 weeks) once per year and 
daily maintenance practice (one to two hours per day) and kept it up 
for seven years. After that, I could no longer go on intensive 
retreats without failing in other responsibilities, but I kept up on 
the daily practice. The calm and the concentration and the witnessing 
of subtle sensations and the special experiences got more and more 
pronounced and profound feeling. So many things seemed like 
breakthroughs and progress! And yet, for the most part they weren't 
really. 

My ideas of breakthroughs and progress have changed in the years 
since. Come to think of it, I don't think much about "progress" at 
all anymore, and still less about "breakthroughs." If I compare 
myself now to myself when I first learned about Dhamma 14 years ago, 
I see a tremendous difference. How much of the "progress" is due to 
learning Dhamma and how much is due to simple maturing? Clearly, some 
is due to each, and for much of it, it is difficult to discern the 
cause. However, for some of it, it is clear that it was conditioned 
by Dhamma...

Breakthroughs -- If by "breakthough" you mean a single realization 
that significantly and noticeably changes they way you approach and 
live life, I can count on one hand the number of maturing 
breakthroughs in the past 14 years, and can count on one finger the 
number of Dhamma breakthroughs. In some sense, then, it is not 
difficult to tell just which part of the progress is Dhamma-related 
and which part is just due to standard maturing. 

Single moments of sharp insight -- when something becomes very clear 
for an instant (like a flash), and the mind immediately thereafter 
thinks: "Aha! So this is what those words really mean" or "Aha! There 
it was" -- certainly can have an impact and happen with far greater 
frequency than the kind of breakthrough discussed above (maybe even 
several times per year). You can remember these long after the fact, 
but in looking back, it is clear that any given insight like this 
does not have a significant, lasting effect. 

Single moments of softer insight -- when something becomes suddenly 
very clear over a short period of time as several dim flashes seem to 
illuminate the understanding, and the mind thinks: "O.K. I see that 
now" or "O.K. There it was" -- happen with much greater frequency 
(maybe even daily or several times a day). The moments are mildly 
disorienting. I can remember few specific instances of these, but I 
can see their effects accumulating.

Special experiences -- when something out of the ordinary happens in 
formal meditation when the mind is calm and the concentration sharp, 
and the mind thinks: "Cool! I'm making progress now" or "Cool! Things 
are going well now" or "I'm so glad I sat down to practice today" -- 
happen on occasion with daily formal practice and may happen 
frequently during intensive retreats. They seem to have some residual 
effects throughout the day or even for several days. The mind may 
seem calmer or lighter for some time, and there may well be an 
increased frequency and intensity of pleasant vedana. This can feel 
very nice. A common (and ditthi inducing) result of such a special 
experience "breakthrough" is increased lobha disguised as "progress." 

Case I. In my experience, the "special experiences" have been 
strongly and directly related to formal practice. These are certainly 
pleasant, but there is little (if any) connection with panya. 
However, there is a very strong, almost irresistable temptation to 
think that the special experiences are either insight, evidence of 
insight, or conducive to insight and to discount or ignore or even 
fail to see the lobha conditioned by these pleasant experiences. 

Case II. The single moments of sharp insight seem also to have been 
related directly related to the formal training. The concentration is 
sharpened to the extent that even subtle sensations appear very 
clear. A small insight appears in sharp relief and seems like a big 
insight. The mind reacts with strong lobha for these small insights 
that feel big. 

In both these cases, there is development of a preference for the 
conditions of quiet room, closed eyes, spine erect, concentration 
sharp -- lobha for special conditions, special experiences is 
unwittingly cultivated. So dangerous! The real working field for 
Dhamma is every moment, all types of conditions, every type of 
experience. When practice of Dhamma is confined to special places, 
special times, special conditions, special techniques, special 
experiences, we forget about studying the present moment because the 
concentration is not so sharp or because there are distractions or 
because we have to work on other obligations or sensual ingulgences 
("I'll think about Dhamma later...") 

Case III. The single moments of softer insight that occur with some 
frequency and whose effects are noticeably accumulated are not 
directly related to formal practice. In fact, they may even occur 
more frequently when the practice is not viewed as a technique to be 
done in such and such a place or in such and such a way, but rather, 
each moment is taken as an opportunity for practice. And it's not a 
matter of *A Practice*, per se, but, rather, just practice. No 
directing the mind to a particular object, but, instead, being aware 
of the characteristics of the mind that appears at this moment, as it 
arises and passes away, understanding the characteristics of mind as 
it arises and passes away. 

How? Well, when sati arises, this moment is understood as seeing, 
that moment as hearing, this mind with lobha, that mind with dosa, 
this dosa arising from craving, etc. Sati does not arise from anyone 
directing the mind to note any particular object or to look for any 
particular thing, but when dhammas arise with right view and sati, 
the characteristics are known and understood. They just arise and 
pass away, without being anyone, without being directed by anyone, 
without being conjured by anyone, without being owned by anyone. Mind 
with panya simply knows about dhammas and what to do with them and 
how to react to them without anyone needing to tell it about the 
dhammas and what to do with them and how to react to them. 

Dan
	

13241

From: robertkirkpatrick.rm <robertkirkpatrick@r...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 6:57pm
Subject: Re: On the Realist Interpretation of the Dhamma Theory

 	
--Dear Howard,
This extract from the introduction of "Conditions" by Nina van 
gorkom probably answers some of your queries:

"Rúpas, physical phenomena, do not arise singly, but in groups, 
which can be produced by kamma, by citta, by heat or by nutrition . 
Thus we see that there is no reality which arises singly. Realities 
do not arise by their own power, they are dependant on other 
phenomena which make them arise. Moreover, there is not any reality 
which arises from a single cause, there is a concurrence of several 
conditions through which realities arise. ....If we understand that 
there is a multiplicity of conditions we will be less inclined to 
think that pain and pleasure can be controlled by a self. Or do we 
still think so? ...Nåma conditions rúpa and rúpa conditions nåma. We 
read in the Visuddhimagga (XVIII, 32) about the interdependence of 
nåma and rúpa:

... For just as when two sheaves of reeds are propped up one against 
the other, each one gives the other consolidating support, and when 
one falls the other falls, so too, in the five-constituent (five 
khandhas ) becoming, mentality-materiality occurs as an 
interdependent state, each of its components giving the other 
consolidating support, and when one falls owing to death, the other 
falls too. Hence the Ancients said:
The mental and material
Are twins and each supports the other;
When one breaks up they both break up
Through interconditionality.
......In being mindful of nåma and rúpa we will learn to distinguish 
their different characteristics, thus, we will not confuse nåma and 
rúpa, and we will also know them as conditioned realities, not 
self.""endquote
best wishes
robert 
- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, all - 
> 
> The following is in response to recent conversations on 
DSG, and it 
> constitutes a slight reworking of something I previously wrote 
out, but, I 
> believe, never mailed:
> In one reading of the Dhamma Theory, during the period in 
which a 
> dhamma exists, it is a true existent. While it exists, or is in 
effect, it is 
> independent in the sense that those conditions which came together 
resulting 
> in the arising of this dhamma have previously ceased, and no 
longer exist. 
> Thus, while the dhamma exists, it does so alone and 
unconditionally.
> Why, then, does the dhamma then cease? What changes 
condition its 
> cessation, inasmuch as at the time it exists, those conditions 
which caused 
> it to arise are *already* nonexistent? Moreover, given that the 
dhamma is a 
> true existent, its cessation is then a true annihilation! Thus we 
have both 
> substantialism and annihilationism countenanced by the very same 
theory!
> A discussion along the lines of the foregoing appears to 
indicate that 
> a realist understanding of the Dhamma Theory is a conventional 
theory of the 
> genus "pluralistic realism" which seems to be at odds with basics 
of the 
> Buddha's Dhamma.
> Comments, anyone?
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
	


13242

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 9:21pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] kilesa

 	
Hi TG,
Since we don't seem to have a definitive statement, I'm going to take a
stab at it and say this means lobha, dosa, mana (conceit), ditthi,
ahirika (shamelessness), and anottappa (consciencelessness) are cut off
by insight and moha, vicikiccha (doubt), thina (torpor), and uddhacca
(restlessness) are cut off by jhana.

Incidently, ditthi and vicikiccha are eliminated at stream entry. Dosa
is eliminated at non-returner state. Lobha, moha, mana, thina, uddhacca,
anottappa, and ahirika are eliminated at arahatship.

best wishes, Larry
-----------------
"At the time of developing the eight mundane attainments the serenity
power is in excess, while at the time of developing the contemplations
of impermanence, etc., the insight power is in excess. But at the noble
path moment they occur coupled together in the sense that neither one
exceeds the other. So there is coupling of the powers in the case of
each one of these four kinds of knowledge, according as it is said 'When
he emerges from the defilements associated with agitation, and from the
aggregates, his mental unification, non-distraction, concentration, has
cessation as its domain. When he emerges from the defilements associated
with ignorance and from the aggregates, his insight in the sense of
contemplation has cessation as its domain. So serenity and insight have
a single nature in the sense of emergence, they are coupled together,
and neither exceeds the other. Hence it was said: He develops serenity
and insight coupled together in the sense of emergence.'"
Vism XXII, 46
	
13243

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 11:23pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 4 Ultimate Realities? (Sarah)

 	
Hi TG (& Howard),

--- TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Sarah.
> 
> I put the question mark back in the title. ;-) I understand your
> points and 
> I thank you for them.
> 
> I just wanted to comment on one point you made suggesting that seeing
> things 
> as phantoms would in essence be counter-productive. (I deleted the
> e-mail 
> accidentally.) I think you were pointing out that it is another concept
> to 
> get in the way of seeing things directly.
.....
I think I was just indicating that attempts to 'break down' elements or
see them as 'phantoms' or 'mirages' or 'plaintain trees' is not the same
of being aware of the characteristics or realities. This doesn't mean the
concepts are not useful for reminding us of the impermanence or
non-core/anatta nature. As you indicate below, the use of different
concepts can help decrease the attachment and wrong view that is so
ingrained.

Thanks for clarifying and apologies for anything that wasn't clear.< I
also mostly agreed with Howard's follow-on comments, except for "the
awareness of the emptiness of conceptual dhammas";-)>

Appreciating all your contributions

Sarah
======

> 
> I began this topic by quoting the Samyutta Nikaya and this is how the
> Buddha 
> recommended seeing "realities"...
> 
> Form -- should be seen as -- A Lump of Foam
> Feeling -- should be seen as -- A Bursting Bubble
> Perception -- should be seen as -- A Mirage
> Mental Formations -- should be seen as -- A Plaintain Tree (coreless)
> Consciousness -- should be seen as -- A Conjurors Trick
> 
> The way I see it, 'phantoms' fits in pretty well. Perhaps the Buddha
> saw 
> that certain concepts and even imaginations (based on principles of
> dependent 
> arising, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and no-self) could be used to
> help 
> free the mind from attachment.
> 
> Take care. TG


	
13244

From: Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> 
Date: Sun May 12, 2002 11:49pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] anicca

 	
Hi Howard,

--- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah -
> 
> Concepts are thoughts. Thoughts are mind objects. 
.....
Yes
.....
>What concepts 
> *refer* to, what they subsume, are frequently illusory, imagined, and
> not 
> existent at all. 
.....
yes
.....
>The concept of a red fire engine is a *thought*. 
.....
Yes
.....
>It
> exists - 
> just as hardness, anger, and smells exist.
.....
Thinking or Experiencing (of the concept or thought) exists. So does the
accompanying anger, pleasure and so on. However, I don't agree that 'the
red fire engine', 'the phantom', even the 'seeing' or 'hearing' as objects
of thinking exist. 

And so, only the thinking, anger, pleasure or other realities can be
objects of awareness. I know we have something of an ‘impasse’ here, but
both for this point and for some of the others you are raising in other
posts on characteristics, sabhava, self-nature, I’d like to add a quote:
.....
Quote from Sub Cy to Mulapariyaya Sutta, B.Bodhi p32:
*****
“They bear their own characteristics”: although there are no dhammas
devoid of their own characteristics <lakhana?>, this is still said for the
purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific
natures <sabhava?> devoid of such attributions as that of a “being” etc. 
Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasureableness, and permanence,
etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiva), body etc, which
are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and
views, or such entities as “sky-flowers” etc which are mere expressions of
conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as
ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), these dhammas
(i.e. those endowed with a specific nature) can. Tthese dhammas are
discovered as ultimately real actualities. And though there is no real
distinction (between these dhammas and their characteristics), still, in
order to facilitate understanding, the exposition makes a distinction as a
mere metaphorical device (upacaaramatta). Or else they are borne, they
are discerned, known, according to their specific n